Ajay Risal1,2, Dipak Kunwar3,4, Eliza Karki3,4, Shambhu Prasad Adhikari3,5, Inosha Bimali3,5, Barsha Shrestha4, Subekshya Khadka4, Are Holen6. 1. Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital, Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal. drajayrisal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Dhulikhel Hospital,, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences,, Kathmandu University Hospital, GPO Box 11008, Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal. drajayrisal@gmail.com. 3. Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University Hospital, Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Dhulikhel Hospital,, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences,, Kathmandu University Hospital, GPO Box 11008, Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal. 5. Department of Physiotherapy, Dhulikhel Hospital, Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dhulikhel, Kavre, Nepal. 6. Department of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disability is a vital public health issue for health care programs. Affluent countries usually prioritize disability-related research, while often it remains neglected in resource-poor countries like Nepal. The aim of this study was to make available a translated and culturally adapted version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for measuring disability in the Nepalese population. METHODS: WHODAS 2.0 (12-items version) was translated into Nepali using a standard forward-backward translation protocol. Purposive and convenience recruitment of participants with psychiatric disabilities was done at the Psychiatry services in a tertiary care hospital. Age and gender-matched participants with physical disabilities were selected from the Internal Medicine department, and participants with no disability were recruited from their accompanying persons. A structured interview in Nepali including the translated WHODAS 2.0 was administered to all participants. Exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis assessed the construct validity. Content validity was explored, and a quality of life instrument was used for establishing criterion validity. Reliability was measured via Cronbach alpha. Mann-Whitney test explored score differences between the disabled and non-disabled. RESULTS: In total, 149 persons [mean age: 40.6 (12.8); 43.6% males, 56.4% females; 61.7% disabled, 38.3% non-disabled] consented to participate. Parallel analysis indicated that a single factor was adequate for the Nepali WHODAS version that captured 45.4% of the total variance. The translated scale got a good Cronbach alpha (= 0.89). Satisfactory construct, content and criterion validity was found. The WHODAS total scores showed a significant difference between the disabled and non-disabled (U = 2002.5; p = 0.015). However, the difference between psychiatric and physical disabilities was not significant, which underscores that the scale is rating disability in general. CONCLUSION: The one-factor structure of the translated and culturally adapted Nepali-version of WHODAS 2.0 showed acceptable validity and an adequate reliability. For epidemiological research purposes, this version of WHODAS 2.0 is now available for measuring global disability in Nepal.
BACKGROUND: Disability is a vital public health issue for health care programs. Affluent countries usually prioritize disability-related research, while often it remains neglected in resource-poor countries like Nepal. The aim of this study was to make available a translated and culturally adapted version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) for measuring disability in the Nepalese population. METHODS: WHODAS 2.0 (12-items version) was translated into Nepali using a standard forward-backward translation protocol. Purposive and convenience recruitment of participants with psychiatric disabilities was done at the Psychiatry services in a tertiary care hospital. Age and gender-matched participants with physical disabilities were selected from the Internal Medicine department, and participants with no disability were recruited from their accompanying persons. A structured interview in Nepali including the translated WHODAS 2.0 was administered to all participants. Exploratory factor analysis and parallel analysis assessed the construct validity. Content validity was explored, and a quality of life instrument was used for establishing criterion validity. Reliability was measured via Cronbach alpha. Mann-Whitney test explored score differences between the disabled and non-disabled. RESULTS: In total, 149 persons [mean age: 40.6 (12.8); 43.6% males, 56.4% females; 61.7% disabled, 38.3% non-disabled] consented to participate. Parallel analysis indicated that a single factor was adequate for the Nepali WHODAS version that captured 45.4% of the total variance. The translated scale got a good Cronbach alpha (= 0.89). Satisfactory construct, content and criterion validity was found. The WHODAS total scores showed a significant difference between the disabled and non-disabled (U = 2002.5; p = 0.015). However, the difference between psychiatric and physical disabilities was not significant, which underscores that the scale is rating disability in general. CONCLUSION: The one-factor structure of the translated and culturally adapted Nepali-version of WHODAS 2.0 showed acceptable validity and an adequate reliability. For epidemiological research purposes, this version of WHODAS 2.0 is now available for measuring global disability in Nepal.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cultural adaptation; Disability assessment; Epidemiological research; Nepali version; WHODAS
Authors: Gavin Andrews; Alice Kemp; Matthew Sunderland; Michael Von Korff; Tevik Bedirhan Ustun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wietse A Tol; Ivan H Komproe; Suraj B Thapa; Mark J D Jordans; Bhogendra Sharma; Joop T V M De Jong Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: J Alonso; M C Angermeyer; S Bernert; R Bruffaerts; T S Brugha; H Bryson; G de Girolamo; R Graaf; K Demyttenaere; I Gasquet; J M Haro; S J Katz; R C Kessler; V Kovess; J P Lépine; J Ormel; G Polidori; L J Russo; G Vilagut; J Almansa; S Arbabzadeh-Bouchez; J Autonell; M Bernal; M A Buist-Bouwman; M Codony; A Domingo-Salvany; M Ferrer; S S Joo; M Martínez-Alonso; H Matschinger; F Mazzi; Z Morgan; P Morosini; C Palacín; B Romera; N Taub; W A M Vollebergh Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl Date: 2004
Authors: F Navarro-Mateu; J Alonso; C C W Lim; S Saha; S Aguilar-Gaxiola; A Al-Hamzawi; L H Andrade; E J Bromet; R Bruffaerts; S Chatterji; L Degenhardt; G de Girolamo; P de Jonge; J Fayyad; S Florescu; O Gureje; J M Haro; C Hu; E G Karam; V Kovess-Masfety; S Lee; M E Medina-Mora; A Ojagbemi; B-E Pennell; M Piazza; J Posada-Villa; K M Scott; J C Stagnaro; M Xavier; K S Kendler; R C Kessler; J J McGrath Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Jennifer Stewart Williams; Nawi Ng; Karl Peltzer; Alfred Yawson; Richard Biritwum; Tamara Maximova; Fan Wu; Perianayagam Arokiasamy; Paul Kowal; Somnath Chatterji Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Renata M Sousa; Michael E Dewey; Daisy Acosta; A T Jotheeswaran; Erico Castro-Costa; Cleusa P Ferri; Mariella Guerra; Yueqin Huang; K S Jacob; Juana Guillermina Rodriguez Pichardo; Nayeli Garcia Ramírez; Juan Llibre Rodriguez; Marina Calvo Rodriguez; Aquiles Salas; Ana Luisa Sosa; Joseph Williams; Martin J Prince Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 4.035